So, young-earth creationists like to use examples of well-preserved fossils to try and "prove" the earth is really 6000 years old. This is complete bunk.

Examples would include preserved dinosaur blood vessels, preserved footprints, preserved soft tissue in anything, etc. They seem to think that these fossils cannot have possibly been preserved this way for millions of years. Yet *could* have been preserved for a few thousand years.

There are a couple problems with this:

1. The burden of proof is on the young-earth creationist to prove that these fossils can't be preserved this way for millions of years, yet can be preserved this way for thousands of years.

2. It's arbitrary. I could just as easily say these fossils disprove young-earth creationism, because they simply couldn't have survived for thousands of years, and must be only hundreds of years old. There really is no reason why that line of logic is more flawed than the one the young-earth creationist uses.

So, please stop using this argument, it's absurd. It commits multiple logical fallacies and only serves to emotionally compel people towards their view.